Do you agree with the view that prehistoric archaeology is simply ‘the past tense of anthropology’?

The proverbial idea that culture influences art, and how the construction of culture then in turn affects the artist has always fascinated me. Why do we, as a soft skinned, blood and gut and tissue amalgamation, consistently question the very nature of our own base selves? Does it give us comfort against the darkness of the yet unknown, to not only probe within ourselves, but to question the ideals and the behavior of our neighbors, and therein finding the “other” on whom which we can finally rest our fears and doubts? Can the methodical study of the “primitive” really lead us back to the truth within our own nature? These are all core questions Anthropology ignites. Literally translated as “the study of man,” can a science ever be bettered? What is more important than pulling apart the sinews and digging deep inside society’s mess in order to gain a greater understanding of not only where it is we come from, but who we are to be in the years to come.

To quote Margaret Hodgen would ultimately substantiate my thoughts on the subject of Anthropology. The “mind’s fidelity to the old which has left its mark on Anthropology.” The concept therein being that humanity will always concede to the memory of the past as a touchstone for the future. Perhaps, if memories are indeed our idea of what ‘perfect’ is, then there is little wonder we repeat the same mistakes throughout our histories, be they small and individual, or grander and more earth shattering—or shaping as it were.

Prehistoric archeology exists solely because of the lack of historical records. Had there been written accounts detailing lives of cultures past, then of course the need for assumptions made on what little physical evidence remains would not be necessary. However, the study of humanity remains the same, even though the concepts by which it is exersicsed is different. Whether it is defined as pre historic archeology or the past tense of anthropology, it is still the basic study of humanity. Therefore one can argue that the two are the same. As time and human nature developed alongside one another, the ways in which we studied our ancestors and ourselves developed accordingly. One way of study picked up where the other left off. Humans by nature are forever questioning the how and the why, consequently connecting a fine line between archeology and anthropology. Both address the basic issue of the study of man; one just happens to rely more so on the past physical, rather than the existing material.